vlabwikiaorg_ru-20200214-history
Taxon:User talk:Kevmin
}} Please note that if you post something for me here, put this page on your watch list -- I'll respond to it here. ---- If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page. This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context. Thanks. ---- ' Taxon Formatting Templates Please stick to 'standard' syntax. Following templates may assist. Also Genera in italics. Lycaon 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC) while updating... Hi. Thanks for your help. Could I ask you that while updating, you also remove distribution data? It should not be on wikispecies. Thanks. Lycaon 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC) :That is not a problem. Kevmin 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC) "Taxonavigation" Double Header Template:Leptostrobales doesn't need " Taxonavigation " because the article page Leptostrobales also has it. Peltaspermales had the same issue - it was fixed. --Georgeryp 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC) : Thanks Georgeryp. I double checked the remainder of those I enetered this afternoon and fixed the others with douulble headers also. --Kevmin 03:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Sphecidae Kevmin you create the Sphecidae with tribus. I have a new species Solierella cerinusipedalis from Hai-Yan Zhang and Qiang Li, 2007. Sphecidae:Larrinae:Miscophini. Why didn't you add the subfamilia and tribus too your page? Regards, PeterR 12:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC) ____ Schmidt I think you're looking for Johannes Schmidt. He seems to be the candidate that falls into the biologist area and quite close to the timeframe. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) __References Hi, do we really need that Treatise on invert paleontol. reference under Mengea??? It isn't really crucial and is just one of thousands of low relevance references that could be listed... AMNZ Having worked there as a volunteer for several years, I can assure you that the correct name for AMNZ is Auckland War Memorial Museum! Cheers, User: 03:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) :I apologize for the revert, we get a fair amound of IP vandals through and I thought this was as some. Kevmin 06:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Tambulyx Kevmin You add Tambulyx in the Ambulycini. I don't know the genus Tambulyx. Which species have Tambulyx and which information you have? I have my informations from Ian J. Kitching. Regards, PeterR 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Replies * Parazoa image: Ok, I'm not too bothered about that one, but it made the page format look odd, and there is an image of a sponge under the phylum Porifera anyway, which is the only phylum within Parazoa. Hence the Parazoa page itself really is just somewhat redundant. * Replacing content: MUST WE REALLY BE STUCK FOREVER WITH REDUNDANT AND NOW IRRELEVANT TALK ON THE TALK PAGES??? It is still in the history archives if anybody wants to read it (which I'm sure they won't) Stho002 03:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC) **Just as people won't think to look in the history, they also won't bother to wade through a whole pile of irrelevant and outdated rubbish to see if there is anything worth reading on the talk pages. It is a perfectly valid edit to remove something that is no longer relevant - just as one would remove a name from a taxon list after it has been synonymised ... Stho002 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Requests for comment One of the people you just requested comment from I would not personally ask for comment on anything! Judging from his edits, that is! Stho002 06:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC) :And that person is User:Biotaman??? and fyi I am asking everyone who has been active in the last couple of days on wikispecies for comment on this community issue--Kevmin 06:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Requests for comment part 1 I get a request from you about use of daggers. I don't understand your request. Have I done something wrong? Regards, PeterR 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Authority/date for names above family-group Authorities/dates for names above family-group are not regulated by any code, and so are meaningless and pointless. Please let us concentrate on adding meaningful and useful information. Stho002 03:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC) :Regulation or no every database, encyclopedia, and scientific paper which gives credit, gives credit to ALL names at ALL taxonomic levels. Just because the ICZN currently doens't want to regulate above the Family level does not mean the names there are not worthy of having the original author and date noted. And in case you haven't notice I AM spending most of my time adding information, so the "concentrate on adding meaningful and Useful information" statement is rather insulting, imho. --Kevmin 08:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC) ::Well, we have already discussed this issue in the Village Pump some time ago, and nobody really cared either way. If you target my edits and keep reverting, then I am justified in taking measures to stop you. Move on from the Animalia page, please. One problem with having authors/dates for such names is that it implies that priority applies, but it doesn't. These days, Metazoa is often used instead of Animalia, mainly because Animalia implies the inclusion of "Protozoa", which are now assigned to other regna. Stho002 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC) :::I'm not "targeting your edits" Animalia happens to be one of the pages I have on my watchlist. Also you will notice that I have been concentrating the vast majority of my editing time on other project so the insinuation that I am "Wikistalking" does not hold water. I found the "discussion" on VP, considering it consists of one comment by you I would agree tehre was not much interest at that time. However considering the timing of the comment and the fact it involved you and Lycaon, it is not surprising that others didn't comment and so I wouldn't classify that as a "we have discussed" situation. Please point me to spots where Metazoa is preferred of Animalia and the standard practice of noting the describing author is not used due to lack of regulation above the family level.--Kevmin 02:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC) :: You are reverting an edit of mine against all rational argument from me as to why authority/date for class-series zoological nomina is not a good idea. You need to read: * 2009: Incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the ''International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: the nomenclatural status of class-series zoological nomina published in a non-latinized form. Zootaxa, 2106: 1-12. Abstract & excerpt There are no rules at present governing authority/dates for such names, and if they do come they could render incorrect any that are already on Wikispecies, so we would then have to correct them all. This is a perfectly rational (and strong) argument, so I am reverting your edit accordingly. Thanks, Stho002 01:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC) * Furthermore, Lycaon is clearly behind this whole silly dispute - he is focussing attention on it in order to stir up trouble for me. He has been around long enough to still have some friends here. Stho002 01:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC) APG II I see that Wikispecies has finally begun the shift to an actual system of plant classification, namely APG II (2003), instead of a self-invented one. This is a great relief. Perhaps there is hope now for the English Wikipedia (as you may know, MPF organized to have me banned there, merely for trying this). Keep up the good work. - Brya 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Synonyms and Daggers You seem to be the one using the dagger, Kevmin! Anyway, a name is trivially a synonym of itself, and I use that fact to keep the Name section as simple as possible, while adding more details about the name in the Synonyms section. There is a fairly widely held view here at Wikispecies that editors be given some small amount of freedom to do things their own way (within policy limits), and if you don't like that, then perhaps you would be better off elsewhere. Also, please do not target my edits - for your own sake, as this is against policy and could result in action against you. BY the way, just out of interest, are you Bruce Archibald, or connected with him in some way??? Stho00207:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) NOTE:Copied from an email sent to my personal computer rather then to my account here at WS --Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) :NOTE: This was using Wikispecies "E-mail this user", a perfectly proper facility that WS provides for communication - I think Kevmin is reading too much into it! Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC) :Including the Current valid name in the synonyms section is needlessly confusing to editors and users. ::Your opinion. Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)]. ::: Yes my opinion as one who has been on species since 2006 and never seen the practice anywhere before.--Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC) :::: everything starts somewhere! Stho002 08:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC) :I have not seen a paper list the current name as a synonym when a new taxon is being described, this is why I removed the synonyms section.--Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ::WS is not a "paper" Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)]. :::But if it is not used in papers and publications why include it here?--Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ::::You might be missing the point: WS is not a paper. WS is basically a database. Hence, you must judge what I'm doing relative to the facilities/strengths/weaknesses of WS's structure, not by comparing it to a "paper". Stho002 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC) :I am aware of the latitude and policies of ws. I would also note that the extinct taxa represented on WS would be almost nonexistent , excluding the well known groups, if not for my contributions so I think I belong here fine. --Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ::I think I might be right up there on the extinct taxa contributions, actually! But it isn't a competition! Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC). :::I can state taht moset of my 6466 edits have been in or related to extinct taxa. Im impressed if you have that many edits in extinct taxa.--Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ::::It is hard for me to count my edits on extinct taxa, as I also do extant taxa... Stho002 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC) :I will state again I am not "targeting" anyone's edits. I clarified two of your edits out of how many you have made in the last few weeks? That is anything but "targeting" and would like clarification as to what type if "action would be taken against me?--Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ::You will be asked, politely, to refrain from doing it!! :) Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC) :::THe porble m with this answer is that the statement was IN and e-mail politly asking me to "refrain from doing this" , which clearly implies more severe action will be taken next. This is what I want to know about. --Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ::::The problem with your answer is that you are clearly "pushing" for something. I think you need to lighten up a bit. Go buy a teddy bear and punch the stuffing out of it, or something! Just kidding! :) Stho002 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Regarding DR. Bruce Archibald, as you should know having received my email informing you that i would answer here, I am not Dr. Archibald. I do know him as he is working extensively with the fossil insect collections at Stonerose. -- Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) :OK - I was just curious! Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Eukaryota Honestly, what were you thinking with that reverthttp://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eukaryota&curid=3673&diff=735183&oldid=735141? Why did you remove references? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC) : I have just unblocked you, but that does not mean you are right. You need to provide a good and satisfying answer to why you did such a stunt. However, you're free to contribute on anything outside of the dispute page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ::As I stated in my email to you personally I was in the process of posing my reasons and concerns regarding the changes made to Eukaryota when I was blocked. I will post my comment there for all to see and comment on--Kevmin 05:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ::: Email received. I'm sure both sides have their valid points, so that is why I allowed you to post your views. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Категория:Taxon:Eukaryota